The University of California Regents moved to dismiss claims filed by three students who alleged that UC Berkeley's delayed and insufficient response to their reports of sexual assault violated Title IX. The court denied the motion with respect to one student's claims, allowing her case to proceed to the next stage of litigation. The motion was granted with respect to the other two students, but they were granted permission to amend their complaints to attempt to overcome the insufficient pleading that lead to the dismissal.
In all three matters, the court decided that the university could only be liable, if at all, for harm to the plaintiff that occurred after the reported incidents of sexual assault, not for the sexual assault itself. This is because institutional liability under Title IX requires that university officials have actual notice in advance of the risk of sexual violence, and in none of the three cases did the plaintiffs allege that the university knew beforehand that the assailant in question posed a threat. Yet, the university could still potentially be liable for harm suffered by the plaintiff caused by the university's failure to adequately respond to their reports of sexual assault. For this to occur, the plaintiff must first allege that they university's response amounted to deliberate indifference. Also, though the plaintiff need not allege that such indifference caused them to be re-victimized, they do need to allege that the university's response impaired their education opportunities in some way, such as by leaving them vulnerable to further harassment or assault.
The first of the three plaintiffs reported to university officials that she was sexually assaulted by a fellow student on a club trip. She alleges in her complaint that the university did not contact her about her complaint for over 8 months and did not discipline the student with anything other than probation despite having found him responsible. However, she did not allege that the university's failure to discipline the student rendered her vulnerability to further harassment. For this reason, the court dismissed her claim, but, as noted above, will allow her to amend the complaint. The court helpfully identified allegations that would be sufficient, including claims that she was made uncomfortable by subsequent encounters with the assailant, or that she had to alter her behavior out of fear of running into him.
The court also determined that the second plaintiff's complaint failed, but for a different reason. This plaintiff claimed that the university was deliberately indifferent in its response to learning of her report that she was raped by another student but did not include details to establish the purportedly insufficient length of time taken by the university to respond to her complaint. She too may amend her complaint to include these details.
The third plaintiff alleged that she was sexually assaulted several times while working as an assistant to a graduate student conducting research in Alaska. The perpetrator was someone affiliated with the research center that hosts a university-affiliated academic program. Moreover, he is someone who regularly guest lectures on campus. The plaintiff alleged that she reported the incidents to the university officials who failed to undertake any kind of investigation or other response. As a result, she was forced to drop those classes in which she might encounter him as a guest lecturer. The court deemed these allegations sufficient to state claim of Title IX liability, so the university's motion to dismiss was denied. The case will now proceed to the discovery phase of litigation, in which the plaintiff will have the opportunity to gather evidence needed to prove the allegations contained in her complaint.
Karasek v. Regents of the University of California, 2015 WL 8527338 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2015).
Showing posts with label Berkeley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Berkeley. Show all posts
Monday, December 14, 2015
Wednesday, July 01, 2015
Title IX Lawsuit Challenges Berkeley's Response to Sexual Assault
Three female plaintiffs, all former students, have sued the University of California at Berkeley alleging that in each of their cases, the University failed to respond adequately to their reports of having been sexually assaulted.
The first plaintiff alleged that the the university's failure to communicate reporting procedures caused several months to go by before she was able to report that she had woken up to a man touching her after a university event. Then, she says, the university shut her out of investigation and disciplined the offender with only probation.
The second plaintiff alleged that when she reported sexual misconduct of a visiting lecturer, the Title IX Coordinator admonished her for not clearly withholding consent, instead of investigating and disciplining the lecturer for groping her even though she had not actively granted consent.
The third plaintiff also alleges that she was shut out of the investigation the university conducted into her claim that she had been raped by a fellow-student acquaintance. Moreover, she challenges the fact that his suspension was only temporary (a year and a half) and that he will be allowed to return to campus -- notwithstanding the fact that rape kit evidence indicated that trauma had ensued.
The plaintiffs all claim that the university violated Title IX. in each of their cases. Because their lawsuit seeks to hold Berkeley accountable for money damages, they must satisfy the "deliberate indifference" standard used by courts in such cases. This standard can often be difficult to satisfy and not necessarily satisfied by allegations of inadequacies that would constitute violations of the Department of Education's Dear Colleague Letter.
The first plaintiff alleged that the the university's failure to communicate reporting procedures caused several months to go by before she was able to report that she had woken up to a man touching her after a university event. Then, she says, the university shut her out of investigation and disciplined the offender with only probation.
The second plaintiff alleged that when she reported sexual misconduct of a visiting lecturer, the Title IX Coordinator admonished her for not clearly withholding consent, instead of investigating and disciplining the lecturer for groping her even though she had not actively granted consent.
The third plaintiff also alleges that she was shut out of the investigation the university conducted into her claim that she had been raped by a fellow-student acquaintance. Moreover, she challenges the fact that his suspension was only temporary (a year and a half) and that he will be allowed to return to campus -- notwithstanding the fact that rape kit evidence indicated that trauma had ensued.
The plaintiffs all claim that the university violated Title IX. in each of their cases. Because their lawsuit seeks to hold Berkeley accountable for money damages, they must satisfy the "deliberate indifference" standard used by courts in such cases. This standard can often be difficult to satisfy and not necessarily satisfied by allegations of inadequacies that would constitute violations of the Department of Education's Dear Colleague Letter.
Thursday, October 09, 2014
Title IX Invoked in Early Efforts to Protect Rights of Female Athletes at Alabama, Berkeley
A couple of Title IX stories about women's college athletics caught my eye this week. Here is a brief roundup.
First, a former women's basketball player at the University of Alabama is using Title IX to challenge the athletic department's allegedly discriminatory manner of allocating scholarships as well as a "fairly broad and comprehensive pattern of bullying, harassment, retaliatory conduct and institutional hazing," according to the attorney representing Daisha Simmons. The details of these allegation are not entirely clear, but the alleged retaliation and harassment are argued to have crystallized in the athletic department's attempt to block Simmons's request to the NCAA for a waiver that would have allowed her to play immediately upon transferring to another institution. It appears from this article that the player's lawyer has filed a complaint with the university, as it is noted that the complaint triggers an internal investigation by the university. However, if the matter is not resolved internally the player's attorney says the matter would likely "wind up in federal court."
Second, some members of the women's field hockey team at the University of California - Berkeley are considering whether to file a Title IX lawsuit against the institution to challenge its failure to provide them with a field the 2015-16 season. The Bears are already playing without a home facility this season while their field is under construction, and recently found out that the displacement would last into next season as well. As a result of their displacement, the team has to travel to other facilities -- the closest of which are an hour away -- for both competitions and daily practice. All that time spent commuting time cuts into the players' available time to take classes and engage in other aspects of student life. If the players pursue Title IX litigation, I predict that central issue will be whether Berkeley treats other men's teams differently when they are displaced for field construction, such as by doing a better job to minimize the length of displacement and finding better temporary facilities for games and practices. If the players don't have an argument along these lines, however, it is possible that a court would see this situation as one that is unfortunate but that does not constitute sex discrimination.
First, a former women's basketball player at the University of Alabama is using Title IX to challenge the athletic department's allegedly discriminatory manner of allocating scholarships as well as a "fairly broad and comprehensive pattern of bullying, harassment, retaliatory conduct and institutional hazing," according to the attorney representing Daisha Simmons. The details of these allegation are not entirely clear, but the alleged retaliation and harassment are argued to have crystallized in the athletic department's attempt to block Simmons's request to the NCAA for a waiver that would have allowed her to play immediately upon transferring to another institution. It appears from this article that the player's lawyer has filed a complaint with the university, as it is noted that the complaint triggers an internal investigation by the university. However, if the matter is not resolved internally the player's attorney says the matter would likely "wind up in federal court."
Second, some members of the women's field hockey team at the University of California - Berkeley are considering whether to file a Title IX lawsuit against the institution to challenge its failure to provide them with a field the 2015-16 season. The Bears are already playing without a home facility this season while their field is under construction, and recently found out that the displacement would last into next season as well. As a result of their displacement, the team has to travel to other facilities -- the closest of which are an hour away -- for both competitions and daily practice. All that time spent commuting time cuts into the players' available time to take classes and engage in other aspects of student life. If the players pursue Title IX litigation, I predict that central issue will be whether Berkeley treats other men's teams differently when they are displaced for field construction, such as by doing a better job to minimize the length of displacement and finding better temporary facilities for games and practices. If the players don't have an argument along these lines, however, it is possible that a court would see this situation as one that is unfortunate but that does not constitute sex discrimination.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
A new type of punishment?
Reporters frequently ask us what the punishment is for failure to comply with Title IX regulations. And we always say something to the effect of "loss of federal funding...but that's never happened."
I continue to believe that one of the informal punishments, or at the very least, negative consequence, is the bad publicity that comes from accusations and findings of violations. In the situation many schools are facing with the visibility of complaints based on the handling of sexual assault cases, this "punishment" is fairly light, especially for victims of the crimes and their mishandling.
But the effect of public opinion may be having a larger impact than many schools would like. And an activist group called Ultra Violet is attempting to sway public opinion--specifically the opinion of applicants--by taking out ads aimed at informing students about the problems with sexual assault on various campuses. They have thus far targeted Dartmouth, Occidental, Berkeley, University of Michigan, Brandeis, American University, FSU, and Harvard.
There doesn't seem to be a rationale for why they have picked these particular schools
The group is claiming responsibility for the 14% drop in applicants to Dartmouth this year. I think that it would be difficult to prove a direct cause and effect there. It's not as if Dartmouth doesn't already have a reputation. Long before the recent revelations and investigations, there was publicity about the Dartmouth fraternities and their effect on campus culture. (Also, other schools are seeing double digit drops in applications as well. Inside Higher Ed reported a similar drop at Quinnipiac which is being attributed to the economy.)
Regardless, the campaign by Ultra Violet is drawing attention, though some schools don't need any help.
The president of Occidental College, which is still under investigation and has already agreed to a settlement for Clery Act violations, has noted the potential damage to the college's reputation. Ironically, the administration's focus on a positive marketing message has caused greater negative publicity with charges that administrators have not done enough to actually remedy the problems on campus. The attention to image and legal defenses has drawn continued protests by students and alums. Donations are down and trustees are not too happy with all the negative press. At a trustee event a few weeks ago, trustees got into it with student, faculty, and alumni protesters who stood outside the event with signs expressing solidarity with victims. One trustee demanded names of rapists from the protesters and questioned their integrity when they told him to go ask administrators.
The tactics of Ultra Violet have been called "aggressive," a problematic description when it comes to female activism. I haven't seen anyone call Occidental's campaign to improve their image by hiring outside PR consulting firms (and refusing to report the costs) or confiscating the computers, phones, and records of professors as aggressive. And it's not as if the passive responses to campus sexual assault that so many schools now stand accused of has been successful.
I continue to believe that one of the informal punishments, or at the very least, negative consequence, is the bad publicity that comes from accusations and findings of violations. In the situation many schools are facing with the visibility of complaints based on the handling of sexual assault cases, this "punishment" is fairly light, especially for victims of the crimes and their mishandling.
But the effect of public opinion may be having a larger impact than many schools would like. And an activist group called Ultra Violet is attempting to sway public opinion--specifically the opinion of applicants--by taking out ads aimed at informing students about the problems with sexual assault on various campuses. They have thus far targeted Dartmouth, Occidental, Berkeley, University of Michigan, Brandeis, American University, FSU, and Harvard.
There doesn't seem to be a rationale for why they have picked these particular schools
The group is claiming responsibility for the 14% drop in applicants to Dartmouth this year. I think that it would be difficult to prove a direct cause and effect there. It's not as if Dartmouth doesn't already have a reputation. Long before the recent revelations and investigations, there was publicity about the Dartmouth fraternities and their effect on campus culture. (Also, other schools are seeing double digit drops in applications as well. Inside Higher Ed reported a similar drop at Quinnipiac which is being attributed to the economy.)
Regardless, the campaign by Ultra Violet is drawing attention, though some schools don't need any help.
The president of Occidental College, which is still under investigation and has already agreed to a settlement for Clery Act violations, has noted the potential damage to the college's reputation. Ironically, the administration's focus on a positive marketing message has caused greater negative publicity with charges that administrators have not done enough to actually remedy the problems on campus. The attention to image and legal defenses has drawn continued protests by students and alums. Donations are down and trustees are not too happy with all the negative press. At a trustee event a few weeks ago, trustees got into it with student, faculty, and alumni protesters who stood outside the event with signs expressing solidarity with victims. One trustee demanded names of rapists from the protesters and questioned their integrity when they told him to go ask administrators.
The tactics of Ultra Violet have been called "aggressive," a problematic description when it comes to female activism. I haven't seen anyone call Occidental's campaign to improve their image by hiring outside PR consulting firms (and refusing to report the costs) or confiscating the computers, phones, and records of professors as aggressive. And it's not as if the passive responses to campus sexual assault that so many schools now stand accused of has been successful.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Complaint filed by Cal students
Yesterday, a group of former and current students filed two separate federal complaints related to the ways in which the University of California Berkeley has handled and reported sexual assault cases. Thirty-one students/alumni joined together to formally protest the university's response to sexual assault at the Berkeley campus.
The first is a Title IX complaint focusing on how the university has dealt with sexual assault. The second alleges Clery Act violations and is based on allegations that staff discouraged students from reporting sexual assaults (which would lower the number of incidents of sexual assault the university would have to publicly report). This is the second Clery Act complaint in less than a year. A complaint from May 2013 which triggered an audit (as yet to be complete) states that the university is underreporting sexual assault.
Media coverage of the filings include stories from named complainants who have recounted their own stories of sexual assault--some as long ago as the 1970s--and dealing with inadequate policies and inadequately trained staff in the wake of their assaults. The stories are all disheartening (at best), but unfortunately nothing we have not heard from other victims.
One major issue seems to be the amount of time investigations take including delays in investigations and the lack of communication to victims about the state of the investigation.
A second issue is the way various staff members are handling these reports, the suggestions they are providing to victims, and the remedies--or lack thereof--being provided. A multiple-time assailant who seemed to be targeting women in the same student organization was allowed to stay in the organization so he could have the support of other members who would tell him it was wrong if he did it again.
Finally, the university is also not taking measures, based on reported incidents, to protect students who report sexual assault. Several complainants said they were continually harassed by their assailant and/or friends of the assailant. Class schedules were not changed to prevent the victim and assailant from being in close proximity. Reports by victims also seem to suggest that the school's judicial process lacks some consistency.
The filings at Berkeley are one of 60 that OCR has seen in the last three years, according to HuffPo, which has mapped all of the complaints and provides summaries of the cases and their current state (active, pending, closed).
The first is a Title IX complaint focusing on how the university has dealt with sexual assault. The second alleges Clery Act violations and is based on allegations that staff discouraged students from reporting sexual assaults (which would lower the number of incidents of sexual assault the university would have to publicly report). This is the second Clery Act complaint in less than a year. A complaint from May 2013 which triggered an audit (as yet to be complete) states that the university is underreporting sexual assault.
Media coverage of the filings include stories from named complainants who have recounted their own stories of sexual assault--some as long ago as the 1970s--and dealing with inadequate policies and inadequately trained staff in the wake of their assaults. The stories are all disheartening (at best), but unfortunately nothing we have not heard from other victims.
One major issue seems to be the amount of time investigations take including delays in investigations and the lack of communication to victims about the state of the investigation.
A second issue is the way various staff members are handling these reports, the suggestions they are providing to victims, and the remedies--or lack thereof--being provided. A multiple-time assailant who seemed to be targeting women in the same student organization was allowed to stay in the organization so he could have the support of other members who would tell him it was wrong if he did it again.
Finally, the university is also not taking measures, based on reported incidents, to protect students who report sexual assault. Several complainants said they were continually harassed by their assailant and/or friends of the assailant. Class schedules were not changed to prevent the victim and assailant from being in close proximity. Reports by victims also seem to suggest that the school's judicial process lacks some consistency.
The filings at Berkeley are one of 60 that OCR has seen in the last three years, according to HuffPo, which has mapped all of the complaints and provides summaries of the cases and their current state (active, pending, closed).
Friday, February 18, 2011
NYT Editorial on Cal Berkeley
There's a good editorial in yesterday's New York Times about Cal-Berkeley's decision to reinstate three of the five athletic teams that had earlier been slated for termination. Addressing the argument that it was unfair of Cal not to also throw a lifeline to two men's teams, baseball and gymnastics, the Editors point out that women were, are, and will remain severely underrepresented in Cal athletics, even with two of their teams reinstated. They they go on to make the following point:
Restoring the women’s teams won’t eliminate the sports gender gap at Berkeley or expand opportunities for women. But it does show that they are trying to meet women’s interests and abilities. The benefits to young women from playing sports are well documented, in their health, psychological outlook, educational performance and future employment. Female athletes also say that sports give them a wonderful opportunity to test themselves.
When money is tight, the struggle to close the gap in athletic opportunity is even tougher. Thanks to Title IX, if something has to give, equality doesn’t go first.
Well said.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Cal Berkeley Could Restore Women's Teams
Perhaps some folks at University of California--Berkeley read our questions about the Title IX compliance problems posed by the university's decision to cut two women's teams (gymnastics and lacrosse) four months ago. As we explained in that earlier post, the decision to terminate women's teams seemed a likely violation, as women were and remained underrepresented in athletics, even factoring in the men's teams also cut. The New York Times reported this week that Cal is apparently considering reinstating some of all five teams that were cut last fall, though the athletic director, Sandy Barbour, explains that the reconsideration was motivated by the outcry by the teams' supporters, as well as pledges of financial support. She denies that this has anything to do with Title IX, though I have to believe they are reading the writing on the wall and acknowledging the fact that the cuts backed them into a corner of having to achieve proportionality. Cal is so far from proportionality, that they would have to add 50 women's opportunities and cut 80 men's opportunities, according to the Times article.
But I'm not so sure that Cal can simply unring this bell by undoing last fall's decision. After all, they weren't any closer to proportionality back then. And even restoring women's gymnastics and lacrosse, it is still far from certain that it is achieving compliance by the alternative method of demonstrating no unmet interest in women's athletics. As the Times article notes, the athletic department denied a request to elevate the women's rugby team to varsity status. If those disappointed athletes sue or complain, they would have a strong case that could produce an obligation on Cal to add them, or come into compliance some other way. Cal's decision to cut teams brought the university into a compliance spotlight, and that spotlight will be very hard to shake.
But I'm not so sure that Cal can simply unring this bell by undoing last fall's decision. After all, they weren't any closer to proportionality back then. And even restoring women's gymnastics and lacrosse, it is still far from certain that it is achieving compliance by the alternative method of demonstrating no unmet interest in women's athletics. As the Times article notes, the athletic department denied a request to elevate the women's rugby team to varsity status. If those disappointed athletes sue or complain, they would have a strong case that could produce an obligation on Cal to add them, or come into compliance some other way. Cal's decision to cut teams brought the university into a compliance spotlight, and that spotlight will be very hard to shake.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
UC Berkeley Cuts Five Teams
As Kris noted recently, the University of California, Berkeley athletic department has been considering eliminating sports as a cost-reduction measure. So it is sadly no surprise that the Chancellor has announced that baseball, men's and women's gymnastics, women's lacrosse, and men's rugby will be no longer be varsity sports. Men's rugby will occupy a new "varsity club" status.
I have a couple of questions about whether this decision complies with Title IX. First, what is varsity club status? It seems like the rugby team will continue to receive some university support -- more than the club teams receive but not as much as varsity teams receive. Title IX does not preclude Cal from making up new status labels for its sports, but those labels must be equitably applied. If a women's sport asks for "varsity club" status, I cannot see the grounds on which Cal would deny them.
Second, I have concerns that the resulting distribution of athletic opportunities complies with Title IX. Before the cuts, Cal could have claimed compliance with prong two or prong three, but eliminating women's teams forecloses that option. This leaves prong one: substantial proportionality. As Kris noted in her earlier post, Cal's women received about 41% of the total athletic opportunities (385/948), despite constituting about 53% of the student body. After the cuts, they still receive about 41% (385-45/948-102*). There is no way a 12 percentage points qualifies as substantial proportionality, so my question is, on what basis is Cal making that claim?
* This denominator figure is adjusted by the loss of both gymnastics teams, baseball, and lacrosse. I did not subtract the 60 terminated opportunities in rugby from the denominator because Cal's EADA report did not include men's rugby when calculating the total number of athletic opportunities.
I have a couple of questions about whether this decision complies with Title IX. First, what is varsity club status? It seems like the rugby team will continue to receive some university support -- more than the club teams receive but not as much as varsity teams receive. Title IX does not preclude Cal from making up new status labels for its sports, but those labels must be equitably applied. If a women's sport asks for "varsity club" status, I cannot see the grounds on which Cal would deny them.
Second, I have concerns that the resulting distribution of athletic opportunities complies with Title IX. Before the cuts, Cal could have claimed compliance with prong two or prong three, but eliminating women's teams forecloses that option. This leaves prong one: substantial proportionality. As Kris noted in her earlier post, Cal's women received about 41% of the total athletic opportunities (385/948), despite constituting about 53% of the student body. After the cuts, they still receive about 41% (385-45/948-102*). There is no way a 12 percentage points qualifies as substantial proportionality, so my question is, on what basis is Cal making that claim?
* This denominator figure is adjusted by the loss of both gymnastics teams, baseball, and lacrosse. I did not subtract the 60 terminated opportunities in rugby from the denominator because Cal's EADA report did not include men's rugby when calculating the total number of athletic opportunities.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Retaliation Cases Make Page 1 of USA Today
Tuesday's edition of USA Today raised the public profile of several retaliation cases we've followed extensively on the blog. The primary piece focused on the Fresno State plaintiffs -- Lindy Vivas, Diane Milutinovich, and Stacy Johnson-Klein -- whose lawsuits generated multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements in the past year. The article calls the Fresno State cases "part of a series of lawsuits that have landed before courts since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that whistle-blowers who allege retaliation in Title IX cases can sue for monetary damages." Along with other, similar cases "from Hawaii to Florida" they "reflect the ongoing tension over the law that bans sex discrimination at schools receiving federal funds."
Other, related pieces provide a timeline of events at Fresno State, a focused piece on the discrimination Lindy Vivas experienced at Fresno State, a separate article about Johnson-Klein's trial and astounding jury verdict, and an interview with Karen Moe Humphreys, the former Berkeley swim coach whose retaliation case settled for $3.5 million, and an article about a gender equity complaint against the University of Southern California that has been under investigation for 10 years.
[thanks, D.C.]
Other, related pieces provide a timeline of events at Fresno State, a focused piece on the discrimination Lindy Vivas experienced at Fresno State, a separate article about Johnson-Klein's trial and astounding jury verdict, and an interview with Karen Moe Humphreys, the former Berkeley swim coach whose retaliation case settled for $3.5 million, and an article about a gender equity complaint against the University of Southern California that has been under investigation for 10 years.
[thanks, D.C.]
Friday, July 27, 2007
Thanks, KFPA
This morning I had the pleasure of talking with KPFA 94.1 Morning Show host Andrea Lewis and Coach Lindy Vivas about Title IX and discrimination in college athletics. KPFA is a Pacifica affiliate broadcasting in Berkeley and Fresno. An archive of the show is here.
After the show, I received a nice email from a listener who is an advocate for girls' baseball in the Bay Area. His website is here.
After the show, I received a nice email from a listener who is an advocate for girls' baseball in the Bay Area. His website is here.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
California Senate Begins Title IX Hearings
Yesterday Sacramento lawmakers began holding hearings on gender equity in college athletics. Inspired by the Lindy Vivas verdict and other pending suits against Fresno State, Senator Dean Florez called for the formation of a Senate Select Committee on Gender Discrimination and Title IX. Yesterday, the committee heard testimony from Vivas, Fresno State President John Welty, and the CSU Chancellor Charles Reed. Judging by the testimony included in this segment on KSFN, Reed seemed uncooperative and off topic as he complained that the jury award was excessive and reiterated his vows to appeal. Perhaps this is what prompted Senator Florez to later express concern about the institutional leadership at Fresno State, to which President Welty responded that gender equity was a difficult issue and that Fresno State was working to "get the job done."
In statement on his website, Senator Florez acknowledged the recent UC Berkeley settlement and says he plans to schedule additional hearings to address whether there is a pattern of gender discrimination at California schools. Perhaps those hearings will be more productive than this one appeared to be.
In statement on his website, Senator Florez acknowledged the recent UC Berkeley settlement and says he plans to schedule additional hearings to address whether there is a pattern of gender discrimination at California schools. Perhaps those hearings will be more productive than this one appeared to be.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Former Berkeley Athletic Department Official Settles Gender Discrimination Case
On Friday the Chronicle of Higher Ed reported:
Wow, that's two big payouts in one month from the taxpayers of California on account of gender discrimination (or alleged discrimination, in Humphrey's case) in the public higher education system.
Here's additional (similar) coverage from the Daily Californian and Sports Illustrated.The University of California system will pay more than $3.5-million to settle a sex-discrimination lawsuit with a former coach and athletics official on its Berkeley campus who sued after she was laid off, in 2004.
The official, Karen Moe Humphreys, who won an Olympic gold medal as a swimmer, coached women’s swimming at Cal from 1978 to 1992. She was an assistant athletics director when the university laid her off, which she said was in retaliation for her whistle-blowing about a hostile work environment for women in the athletics department.
According to the terms of the settlement, the university will pay Ms. Humphreys $3.5-million in lawyers’ fees and other litigation costs, and also reimburse her full back pay and benefits. She will be reinstated as a university employee in an unspecified post until January 2008, when she will retire, according to a joint statement released by Ms. Humphreys and Berkeley.
Wow, that's two big payouts in one month from the taxpayers of California on account of gender discrimination (or alleged discrimination, in Humphrey's case) in the public higher education system.
Monday, March 26, 2007
A conversation at Berkeley
Interesting "conversation" in the editorial pages of the UC Berkeley paper, The Daily Californian. Over a week ago, Olympic swimmer and long-time Title IX advocate, Donna de Varona, wrote this opinion about the state of Berkeley athletics. She cites the university's history of providing equitable opportunities for women but also the recent backsliding she has seen due to a variety of factors. (I won't rehash the details which she does a good job providing.)
A week later, this piece by the vice chancellor of admissions, Nathan Bostrom, appeared in response to de Varona's. Unfortunately Bostrom does not really take on any of the issues de Varona raised. He believes it was "ironic" that de Varona's piece was published the same week female athletes won six national titles (in track/field and swimming). He cites the numerous titles won by women's teams at Berkeley. He gives Berkeley's standing in the Pac-10 in terms of number of female athletes and women's teams. He talks about growth and championships and conference titles. This is all well and good--in fact it looks quite impressive. But it does not address de Varona's concerns but gender equity, because you cannot talk about equity and only gives facts and figures about the women's program. It is all relative. It does not matter how many female athletes Berkeley has in comparison to the rest of the Pac-10. It matters how proportional their female athletes are to their undergrad population. Within conference school sizes differ so saying you have one of the highest numbers of athletes does not mean all that much.
Bostrom uses the tactics of someone in admissions: he praises the program; he shows why Berkeley women's athletics are good.
De Varona takes the stand of a women's sports advocate who understands how to measure gender equity.
A week later, this piece by the vice chancellor of admissions, Nathan Bostrom, appeared in response to de Varona's. Unfortunately Bostrom does not really take on any of the issues de Varona raised. He believes it was "ironic" that de Varona's piece was published the same week female athletes won six national titles (in track/field and swimming). He cites the numerous titles won by women's teams at Berkeley. He gives Berkeley's standing in the Pac-10 in terms of number of female athletes and women's teams. He talks about growth and championships and conference titles. This is all well and good--in fact it looks quite impressive. But it does not address de Varona's concerns but gender equity, because you cannot talk about equity and only gives facts and figures about the women's program. It is all relative. It does not matter how many female athletes Berkeley has in comparison to the rest of the Pac-10. It matters how proportional their female athletes are to their undergrad population. Within conference school sizes differ so saying you have one of the highest numbers of athletes does not mean all that much.
Bostrom uses the tactics of someone in admissions: he praises the program; he shows why Berkeley women's athletics are good.
De Varona takes the stand of a women's sports advocate who understands how to measure gender equity.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Can a "good" program have a Title IX problem?
Erin and Sudha are off at AALS this week so I am doing my best to keep up with the Title IX news. Luckily there hasn't been too much going on.
There was an interesting article in the San Francisco Chronicle that came out just before the end of the year about the athletic programs at UC Berkeley in which writer Rick DelVecchio profiles the highly successful athletic program at Berkeley, especially the success and support of its women's teams. But the success has not lead to more opportunities for women.
Cal's proportionality numbers are very, to use a technical term, out of whack. Women comprise 54 percent of the undergraduate population but only 41 percent of student-athletes who compete on 15 teams. This, according to DelVecchio, means there is about a 100-student gap.
What is interesting about the article is that it initially appears to be unmotivated by any particular event or moment, as if it was just a slow news week and DelVecchio said "hey, let's check out how Cal stacks up in terms of Title IX compliance."
But reading on we discover that Cal is in the process of "an audit of Cal's record under Title IX to see if there is gender discrimination in sports programs." A few paragraphs later DelVecchio writes this:
One review now under way is part of Cal's latest report card to the National Collegiate Athletic Association's certification committee, which looks over the nation's most ambitious intercollegiate athletic programs every 10 years for compliance with association rules. This time around, the committee is particularly interested in what schools have done to promote gender equity.
Is the "audit" and the "review" the same thing? Audit seems like more of an internal process Cal undertook of its own accord. But the NCAA "report card" is an external mandate. But this too is confusing. Schools undergo NCAA reaccreditation processes in which they are required to form committees and write reports on the status of the athletic department, including--but not limited to--gender equity. And this process occurs more than once every ten years. More typically it is every 4-5 years. And not just the "ambitious" programs are subject to the process.
So I am not quite sure what exactly is happening out in Berkeley but if it is an NCAA reaccreditation process then administrators should be very concerned about the disparity in opportunities.
In the gender equity component of their report to the NCAA they will have to unequivocally state which prong they comply with. Prong 1, proportionality, is, as the article notes, not even close to being achieved. Prong 2, history of expanding programs and opportunities also seems like a hard sell. DelVecchio reports that Cal added teams in the 90s but that is just too long ago to be acceptable to the NCAA review committee.
It seems that all they are left with is prong 3, meeting the interests and abilities of its female student body. And according to athletic director Sandy Barbour--one of the few female ADs in the country--that is the option they are going with. She says: "I would like our numbers to look better for a variety of reasons, (but) I have every faith we are fully accommodating the interests of our student body." Faith in what, though? Has Cal surveyed its undergrads? How do they know the interests are being met? The article does not mention whether a survey has been done or will be done. But I don't think faith alone is going to satisfy any review committee--or the courts if it comes to that.
There was an interesting article in the San Francisco Chronicle that came out just before the end of the year about the athletic programs at UC Berkeley in which writer Rick DelVecchio profiles the highly successful athletic program at Berkeley, especially the success and support of its women's teams. But the success has not lead to more opportunities for women.
Cal's proportionality numbers are very, to use a technical term, out of whack. Women comprise 54 percent of the undergraduate population but only 41 percent of student-athletes who compete on 15 teams. This, according to DelVecchio, means there is about a 100-student gap.
What is interesting about the article is that it initially appears to be unmotivated by any particular event or moment, as if it was just a slow news week and DelVecchio said "hey, let's check out how Cal stacks up in terms of Title IX compliance."
But reading on we discover that Cal is in the process of "an audit of Cal's record under Title IX to see if there is gender discrimination in sports programs." A few paragraphs later DelVecchio writes this:
One review now under way is part of Cal's latest report card to the National Collegiate Athletic Association's certification committee, which looks over the nation's most ambitious intercollegiate athletic programs every 10 years for compliance with association rules. This time around, the committee is particularly interested in what schools have done to promote gender equity.
Is the "audit" and the "review" the same thing? Audit seems like more of an internal process Cal undertook of its own accord. But the NCAA "report card" is an external mandate. But this too is confusing. Schools undergo NCAA reaccreditation processes in which they are required to form committees and write reports on the status of the athletic department, including--but not limited to--gender equity. And this process occurs more than once every ten years. More typically it is every 4-5 years. And not just the "ambitious" programs are subject to the process.
So I am not quite sure what exactly is happening out in Berkeley but if it is an NCAA reaccreditation process then administrators should be very concerned about the disparity in opportunities.
In the gender equity component of their report to the NCAA they will have to unequivocally state which prong they comply with. Prong 1, proportionality, is, as the article notes, not even close to being achieved. Prong 2, history of expanding programs and opportunities also seems like a hard sell. DelVecchio reports that Cal added teams in the 90s but that is just too long ago to be acceptable to the NCAA review committee.
It seems that all they are left with is prong 3, meeting the interests and abilities of its female student body. And according to athletic director Sandy Barbour--one of the few female ADs in the country--that is the option they are going with. She says: "I would like our numbers to look better for a variety of reasons, (but) I have every faith we are fully accommodating the interests of our student body." Faith in what, though? Has Cal surveyed its undergrads? How do they know the interests are being met? The article does not mention whether a survey has been done or will be done. But I don't think faith alone is going to satisfy any review committee--or the courts if it comes to that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)